There is currently a court case in which plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief that would allow each conference to decide for itself whether to allow players to be paid over and above the cost of their scholarship.
If the NCAA were to lose that case, by what criteria would the ACC make its decision? Would it be by simple majority (like decisions about division alignments) or would it require a super majority (like adding a new member)?
How many ACC schools do you think would vote to pay players? And if there were enough to pass it, would the minority schools who voted against be allowed to leave the conference without paying an exit fee? Or might they be allowed to stay but play football somewhere else?
Conversely, if it were teams that did want to pay who were outvoted, would they be held to GoRs and exit fees?
This has such far reaching implications for college athletics I would expect a loss by the NCAA would be appealed all the way to SCOTUS.
(11-02-2018 10:53 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]There is currently a court case in which plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief that would allow each conference to decide for itself whether to allow players to be paid over and above the cost of their scholarship.
If the NCAA were to lose that case, by what criteria would the ACC make its decision? Would it be by simple majority (like decisions about division alignments) or would it require a super majority (like adding a new member)?
How many ACC schools do you think would vote to pay players? And if there were enough to pass it, would the minority schools who voted against be allowed to leave the conference without paying an exit fee? Or might they be allowed to stay but play football somewhere else?
This has such far reaching implications for college athletics I would expect a loss by the NCAA would be appealed all the way to SCOTUS.
Obviously the more sports teams a school had would increase the cost for the institution.
Who would set the rate? Should a football player get more than someone on the women's fencing team?
What happens if the golf team goes on strike because the conference refuses to pay the caddies for the conference tournament?
It isn't going to be worth it.
(11-02-2018 11:29 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2018 10:53 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]There is currently a court case in which plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief that would allow each conference to decide for itself whether to allow players to be paid over and above the cost of their scholarship.
If the NCAA were to lose that case, by what criteria would the ACC make its decision? Would it be by simple majority (like decisions about division alignments) or would it require a super majority (like adding a new member)?
How many ACC schools do you think would vote to pay players? And if there were enough to pass it, would the minority schools who voted against be allowed to leave the conference without paying an exit fee? Or might they be allowed to stay but play football somewhere else?
This has such far reaching implications for college athletics I would expect a loss by the NCAA would be appealed all the way to SCOTUS.
Obviously the more sports teams a school had would increase the cost for the institution.
Who would set the rate? Should a football player get more than someone on the women's fencing team?
What happens if the golf team goes on strike because the conference refuses to pay the caddies for the conference tournament?
It isn't going to be worth it.
I don't think anyone believes a school would have to pay all athletes just because they choose to pay some. This is all new ground here. There are no precedents to guide us, or the schools.
Likely this causes future realignment if it goes down.
The divide between conferences will grow.
(11-02-2018 02:41 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]Likely this causes future realignment if it goes down.
The divide between conferences will grow.
And for the ACC specifically? What choices do we make?
(11-02-2018 02:44 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2018 02:41 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]Likely this causes future realignment if it goes down.
The divide between conferences will grow.
And for the ACC specifically? What choices do we make?
I think this has the potential to break up the ACC. Some schools will want to compete, others won't - it's just that simple. Now they could prove me wrong and all 15 programs could go all-in (no way would I see all 15 dropping out, though).
It could be the factor that starts the "academic split" that everyone rants about.
I am not seeing this as all or nothing. Not every single athlete is worth getting paid above and beyond what is currently being done and for those that are paid, not every one of them deserves to be paid at the same rate, which to me means the conference might have the flexibility to compromise with something like this:
Lowest Level - Partial scholarship
Next Level - Full scholarship
Next Level - Full scholarship plus COA
Next Level - Lowest Level Cash Salary ('x' range)
Next Level - Middle Level Cash Salary ('y' range)
Highest Level - Highest Level Cash Salary ('z' range)
The devil will be in the details. Maybe school 'x' decides it will only participate at the three lower levels (which is what is happening now); another might decide the three lower levels plus the fourth level but not the next two levels. Wait a few years to see how that affects both their bottom lines and their ability to compete before deciding whether to jump in entirely or bow out.
These are my initial thoughts anyway, since there is still not enough information to have any idea what the reality will be.
Cheers,
Neil
(11-02-2018 04:44 PM)OrangeDude Wrote: [ -> ]I am not seeing this as all or nothing. Not every single athlete is worth getting paid above and beyond what is currently being done and for those that are paid, not every one of them deserves to be paid at the same rate, which to me means the conference might have the flexibility to compromise with something like this:
Lowest Level - Partial scholarship
Next Level - Full scholarship
Next Level - Full scholarship plus COA
Next Level - Lowest Level Cash Salary ('x' range)
Next Level - Middle Level Cash Salary ('y' range)
Highest Level - Highest Level Cash Salary ('z' range)
The devil will be in the details. Maybe school 'x' decides it will only participate at the three lower levels (which is what is happening now); another might decide the three lower levels plus the fourth level but not the next two levels. Wait a few years to see how that affects both their bottom lines and their ability to compete before deciding whether to jump in entirely or bow out.
These are my initial thoughts anyway, since there is still not enough information to have any idea what the reality will be.
Cheers,
Neil
What's to stop a team like Alabama from simply offering EVERY 4 or 5 star player the max salary - at every position? Sure, you might be able to lure away a QB based on playing time and equal pay, but how will you compete with 10-deep blue-chip offensive and defensive linemen?
To use economic terms: I don't think many people are opposed to "free enterprise" - paying a competitive wage to those who deserve it. The problem is rampant "capitalism" - simply buying up everything of value because you have more money.
(11-02-2018 05:14 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2018 04:44 PM)OrangeDude Wrote: [ -> ]I am not seeing this as all or nothing. Not every single athlete is worth getting paid above and beyond what is currently being done and for those that are paid, not every one of them deserves to be paid at the same rate, which to me means the conference might have the flexibility to compromise with something like this:
Lowest Level - Partial scholarship
Next Level - Full scholarship
Next Level - Full scholarship plus COA
Next Level - Lowest Level Cash Salary ('x' range)
Next Level - Middle Level Cash Salary ('y' range)
Highest Level - Highest Level Cash Salary ('z' range)
The devil will be in the details. Maybe school 'x' decides it will only participate at the three lower levels (which is what is happening now); another might decide the three lower levels plus the fourth level but not the next two levels. Wait a few years to see how that affects both their bottom lines and their ability to compete before deciding whether to jump in entirely or bow out.
These are my initial thoughts anyway, since there is still not enough information to have any idea what the reality will be.
Cheers,
Neil
What's to stop a team like Alabama from simply offering EVERY 4 or 5 star player the max salary - at every position? Sure, you might be able to lure away a QB based on playing time and equal pay, but how will you compete with 10-deep blue-chip offensive and defensive linemen?
To use economic terms: I don't think many people are opposed to "free enterprise" - paying a competitive wage to those who deserve it. The problem is rampant "capitalism" - simply buying up everything of value because you have more money.
What's to stop them? The cynic in me says the 85 player scholarship limit. There are a lot more than 25 four or five star players out there every year. Some of them have to go somewhere else. Fact is, Alabama already pretty much gets all the top players it wants. I don't think they would have to pay that much to stay on top.
But I wonder how long the other members of the SEC would tolerate ceding the conference championship to Alabama every year. Or members of other conferences ceding them the national championship.
If all the best players wind up on a handful of rich teams every year, pretty soon nobody else would play them. In effect, they would be thrown out of the club.
There is also more to choosing a school beyond the economics of things.
Right now, you get schollies and COA. The value of schollies varies dramatically between schools. Yet that doesn't propel those expensive schools football programs above the cheaper schools. If it did, Wake Forest would dominate, because that school is expensive as all hell to attend. The pure economic value of a scholly to WF dwarfs that of many other football powers.
Alabama could step up and say ... "You know what, we COULD pay you a crap ton. But we're not paying you squat beyond what we do right now." And I bet they'd still out recruit everyone else. They have the leverage of being a great football program that pumps out NFLers at a rate higher than most. Why pay their players anything??